4.7 Article

Hollow fiber supported liquid membrane extraction for ultrasensitive determination of trace lead by portable tungsten coil electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry

Journal

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages 238-242

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2010.03.008

Keywords

Hollow fiber; Supported liquid membrane extraction; Tungsten coil; Electrothermal atomization; Atomic absorption spectrometry; Lead

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education of China [2006BAK03A14]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20835003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hollow fiber supported liquid membrane extraction (HF-SLME) was used to separate and enrich trace lead from a large volume of 250 mL water sample to a final tiny volume of 30 mu L of 1-octanol, 5 mu L of which was inject into a tungsten coil electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometer (W-coil ET-AAS) for determination of lead. Some important parameters that influenced the extraction and determination were investigated in detail, such as the concentration of ammonium pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate (APDC), pH of sample solution, stirring rate, extraction time, pyrolysis current, atomization current, carrier gas flow rate, as well as interferences. Under the optimized conditions, a practical enrichment factor of 499 and a limit of detection (3 sigma) of 0.2 ng mL(-1) were obtained. The calibration curve was linear in the range of 0.5-10 ng mL(-1). The relative standard deviation (RSD) was 5.6% for five measurements of a 4 ng mL(-1) lead standard solution. The accuracy of this method was examined by the analysis of certified reference water samples (GBW(E)080398 and GSBZ(E) 50009-88) for lead. Finally, the proposed method was applied to the determination of lead in local tap water, pond water and river water, with recoveries in the range of 96-109% for spiked samples. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available